Guild Wars 2

I often see a lot of people frustrated about certain builds/classes being “broken” and in some cases, there are certain builds that are just notoriously annoying/difficult (pre patched turret engi, burning, condi builds, etc.) I have noticed a lot of these people have trouble when trying to duel/single out someone, and while dueling is a lot of fun, it’s just not balanced around that (and it wasn’t supposed to be.) If it was, you wouldn’t see things like rampage or lich form.

Pvp is meant to be a team effort, encouraging players to work together and covering their weaknesses. Nearly all builds you will encounter in dueling rooms are designed for taking down one person and usually suffer from a lack of mobility, which can be fun, but is a completely different meta.

If you want rewards AKA a llama, chests, etc. at the end of the day training yourself for team efficiency is the better option.

True but 1v1 dueling is more unbalanced than it was prepatch. It’s so noticeable that threads have been made regarding these specific scenarios. It begs the question, how is TPvP more balanced because of it?

TPvP (non dueling) meta builds, Class A vs class B can get completely countered in a 1v1 scenario at far or home. When prepatch, this wasn’t the case. That’s what the argument has been about in these “dueling” threads, it’s a balance issue that wasn’t there before.

And i laugh when the specialization huggers say the dumbing down of trait choice was made to make it easier to balance. They turned the dps and condies to 10 trying to make it feel like a more optimized game. When they turn it down to balance, all that will be left is fewer choices.

Did you know that fights also happen and close and far? The typical game does not go like this:

a) Team A sends one person close. Team B sends one person to their close
b) Rest 4 people go mid and everyone fights there till timer ends
c) Profit…!

In a real match, lots of 1v1s take place. Saying “Oh, game is not balanced around 1v1s and it shouldn’t be”, is (I am sorry to say), ignorant. Lots of isolated, but yet crucial fights happen in a typical conquest game.

Bottom line: All maps are not courtyard.

Not sure which matches you are playing or maybe it is terminology, in conquest you are defending or assaulting or both, hardly what one would call a 1v1, maybe you are thinking of custom arena. If you are fighting another player on the point in which your team controls you are at a serious disadvantage, hardly what anyone could think of calling a 1v1

Lexiceta.4156:

Not sure which matches you are playing or maybe it is terminology, in conquest you are defending or assaulting or both, hardly what one would call a 1v1, maybe you are thinking of custom arena. If you are fighting another player on the point in which your team controls you are at a serious disadvantage, hardly what anyone could think of calling a 1v1

Come again? Fighting on a point you control to prevent it from being decapped or capped can never be a 1v1 and is a serious disadvantage?

Could you explain why you think this?

Some builds are better at 1v1 than others, for sure. I don’t see the problem with that, though: as the OP has stated, the game is a team effort, if you find yourself dueling on a point when you don’t have the right build for it, then either you’re greedy (so be punished if you cannot overcome the build handicap), or you’ve got a big rotation issue (your role is to be doing something else somewhere else).

Elegie.3620:

Some builds are better at 1v1 than others, for sure. I don’t see the problem with that, though: as the OP has stated, the game is a team effort, if you find yourself dueling on a point when you don’t have the right build for it, then either you’re greedy (so be punished if you cannot overcome the build handicap), or you’ve got a big rotation issue (your role is to be doing something else somewhere else).

So at least we agree that 1v1s do have a role, and that they cannot be ignored. Great. Consequently, a build that is too good in 1v1s for all classes is clearly unbalanced.

Explain? ok, Point assault has a huge advantage they know where point defender will eventually have to be i.e. the point itself with it’s limited space and with one exception no point has los barriers, where as point assaulter has many barriers and the freedom to move anywhere, this is not 1v1 , this is point assault and defense, as designed the advantage is given to point assault, this makes sense since the opposite would make the game pretty boring. But this not 1v1 where both players only have one objective, to defeat the other player. As a defender you have multiple objectives, prevent capped point from becoming decaped, prevent assaulting player from achieving a tactical or strategic advantage and lastly prevent re assault. Of course there are more such as assaults ability to disengage more easily etc etc but you get the point, pun intended. Assaulting player also has multiple objectives primary of which is decapping the point, so on so on defeating the other player may solve these objectives, but it not the goal as it is in 1v1. This why many teams try to defend points at choke locations on the map there by lessening the defenders disadvantage.

Lexiceta.4156:

Explain? ok, Point assault has a huge advantage they know where point defender will eventually have to be i.e. the point itself with it’s limited space and with one exception no point has los barriers, where as point assaulter has many barriers and the freedom to move anywhere, this is not 1v1 , this is point assault and defense, as designed the advantage is given to point assault, this makes sense since the opposite would make the game pretty boring. But this not 1v1 where both players only have one objective, to defeat the other player. As a defender you have multiple objectives, prevent capped point from becoming decaped, prevent assaulting player from achieving a tactical or strategic advantage and lastly prevent re assault. Of course there are more such as assaults ability to disengage more easily etc etc but you get the point, pun intended. Assaulting player also has multiple objectives primary of which is decapping the point, so on so on defeating the other player may solve these objectives, but it not the goal as it is in 1v1. This why many teams try to defend points at choke locations on the map there by lessening the defenders disadvantage.

I think you’re getting confused between 1v1 and dueling. In dueling, the objective is to kill the other person. 1v1 is any situation where there are only 2 players in the immediate vicinity – hence, “1v1”.

And conquest has a lot of 1v1s. Therefore, the game has to be balanced around certain 1v1 situations also.

Also, curious about this statement of yours “As designed the advantage is given to point assault”. How do you know it was designed with this intention? Did the developers say something like this? Or did you just make this up on the spur of the moment?

bhagwad.4281:

Lexiceta.4156:

Explain? ok, Point assault has a huge advantage they know where point defender will eventually have to be i.e. the point itself with it’s limited space and with one exception no point has los barriers, where as point assaulter has many barriers and the freedom to move anywhere, this is not 1v1 , this is point assault and defense, as designed the advantage is given to point assault, this makes sense since the opposite would make the game pretty boring. But this not 1v1 where both players only have one objective, to defeat the other player. As a defender you have multiple objectives, prevent capped point from becoming decaped, prevent assaulting player from achieving a tactical or strategic advantage and lastly prevent re assault. Of course there are more such as assaults ability to disengage more easily etc etc but you get the point, pun intended. Assaulting player also has multiple objectives primary of which is decapping the point, so on so on defeating the other player may solve these objectives, but it not the goal as it is in 1v1. This why many teams try to defend points at choke locations on the map there by lessening the defenders disadvantage.

I think you’re getting confused between 1v1 and dueling. In dueling, the objective is to kill the other person. 1v1 is any situation where there are only 2 players in the immediate vicinity – hence, “1v1”.

And conquest has a lot of 1v1s. Therefore, the game has to be balanced around certain 1v1 situations also.

Conquest maps are cater to group vs group, which maxed at 5 per team. This is what I find the most hilarious in sPvP matches, people who died during any x vs 1 encounter, they spew out some venom like another classes joining in on a oncoming 1 vs 1 is wrong. What did you expect other players to do? form a line and wait for 1 vs 1 to be over, and winner fight the next person from the enemy group? Conquests are meant to be play as group, whatever means necessary to win by points.

rchu.8945:

bhagwad.4281:

Lexiceta.4156:

Explain? ok, Point assault has a huge advantage they know where point defender will eventually have to be i.e. the point itself with it’s limited space and with one exception no point has los barriers, where as point assaulter has many barriers and the freedom to move anywhere, this is not 1v1 , this is point assault and defense, as designed the advantage is given to point assault, this makes sense since the opposite would make the game pretty boring. But this not 1v1 where both players only have one objective, to defeat the other player. As a defender you have multiple objectives, prevent capped point from becoming decaped, prevent assaulting player from achieving a tactical or strategic advantage and lastly prevent re assault. Of course there are more such as assaults ability to disengage more easily etc etc but you get the point, pun intended. Assaulting player also has multiple objectives primary of which is decapping the point, so on so on defeating the other player may solve these objectives, but it not the goal as it is in 1v1. This why many teams try to defend points at choke locations on the map there by lessening the defenders disadvantage.

I think you’re getting confused between 1v1 and dueling. In dueling, the objective is to kill the other person. 1v1 is any situation where there are only 2 players in the immediate vicinity – hence, “1v1”.

And conquest has a lot of 1v1s. Therefore, the game has to be balanced around certain 1v1 situations also.

Conquest maps are cater to group vs group, which maxed at 5 per team. This is what I find the most hilarious in sPvP matches, people who died during any x vs 1 encounter, they spew out some venom like another classes joining in on a oncoming 1 vs 1 is wrong. What did you expect other players to do? form a line and wait for 1 vs 1 to be over, and winner fight the next person from the enemy group? Conquests are meant to be play as group, whatever means necessary to win by points.

That’s not what this is about. This is about recognizing the reality that in many situations, there will be only 2 people in the vicinity – 1v1s. And the outcomes of those fights can be absolutely crucial.

Your hypothetical scenario is a complete strawman, since no one is suggesting any such thing in the first place. No one complains about others joining a fight unless it’s hotjoin. At medium level of play, everyone understands the objectives.

bhagwad.4281:

Lexiceta.4156:

Explain? ok, Point assault has a huge advantage they know where point defender will eventually have to be i.e. the point itself with it’s limited space and with one exception no point has los barriers, where as point assaulter has many barriers and the freedom to move anywhere, this is not 1v1 , this is point assault and defense, as designed the advantage is given to point assault, this makes sense since the opposite would make the game pretty boring. But this not 1v1 where both players only have one objective, to defeat the other player. As a defender you have multiple objectives, prevent capped point from becoming decaped, prevent assaulting player from achieving a tactical or strategic advantage and lastly prevent re assault. Of course there are more such as assaults ability to disengage more easily etc etc but you get the point, pun intended. Assaulting player also has multiple objectives primary of which is decapping the point, so on so on defeating the other player may solve these objectives, but it not the goal as it is in 1v1. This why many teams try to defend points at choke locations on the map there by lessening the defenders disadvantage.

I think you’re getting confused between 1v1 and dueling. In dueling, the objective is to kill the other person. 1v1 is any situation where there are only 2 players in the immediate vicinity – hence, “1v1”.

And conquest has a lot of 1v1s. Therefore, the game has to be balanced around certain 1v1 situations also.

Also, curious about this statement of yours “As designed the advantage is given to point assault”. How do you know it was designed with this intention? Did the developers say something like this? Or did you just make this up on the spur of the moment?

It’s pretty obvious that the advantage will nearly always be to the assaulter rather than the defender, simply by nature of having multiple paths of approach and only one place you can defend from, and also the existence of stealth (surprise is a huge advantage).
I an also safely assume this is thought out and by design, because a game where the advantage is to the defender is extremely boring (think about it…).

P Fun Daddy.1208:

bhagwad.4281:

Lexiceta.4156:

Explain? ok, Point assault has a huge advantage they know where point defender will eventually have to be i.e. the point itself with it’s limited space and with one exception no point has los barriers, where as point assaulter has many barriers and the freedom to move anywhere, this is not 1v1 , this is point assault and defense, as designed the advantage is given to point assault, this makes sense since the opposite would make the game pretty boring. But this not 1v1 where both players only have one objective, to defeat the other player. As a defender you have multiple objectives, prevent capped point from becoming decaped, prevent assaulting player from achieving a tactical or strategic advantage and lastly prevent re assault. Of course there are more such as assaults ability to disengage more easily etc etc but you get the point, pun intended. Assaulting player also has multiple objectives primary of which is decapping the point, so on so on defeating the other player may solve these objectives, but it not the goal as it is in 1v1. This why many teams try to defend points at choke locations on the map there by lessening the defenders disadvantage.

I think you’re getting confused between 1v1 and dueling. In dueling, the objective is to kill the other person. 1v1 is any situation where there are only 2 players in the immediate vicinity – hence, “1v1”.

And conquest has a lot of 1v1s. Therefore, the game has to be balanced around certain 1v1 situations also.

Also, curious about this statement of yours “As designed the advantage is given to point assault”. How do you know it was designed with this intention? Did the developers say something like this? Or did you just make this up on the spur of the moment?

It’s pretty obvious that the advantage will nearly always be to the assaulter rather than the defender, simply by nature of having multiple paths of approach and only one place you can defend from, and also the existence of stealth (surprise is a huge advantage).
I an also safely assume this is thought out and by design, because a game where the advantage is to the defender is extremely boring (think about it…).

I disagree. It makes most sense for neither to have an advantage. The surprise of stealth is precisely why people are asking for it to be toned down. It’s one thing for the attacker to have an advantage because of the way things are (because the way things are can be changed), and quite another for the attacker to have an advantage by design.

Also, the magnitude of the advantage has to be taken into consideration. If we feel that stealth gives too much of it, then stealth is OP. Mind you, I main a mesmer and you can imagine how much of a benefit stealth is to me. But having a fun and fair game is more important to me than simply boosting my class.

People cannot simply throw up their hands and say “Oh, 1v1s!” Balance for 1v1s is crucial and simply cannot be ignored.

OP I agree that your overall point is correct, in that its stupid complaining about condi necros or condi rangers or condi mesmers (notice a theme here?) for being very strong 1v1, because so many people think those builds are overpowered in general because they can’t win 1v1s against them… however its abundantly clear that those 3 builds, as well as most other 1v1 or condition focused builds absolutely suck in team fights with 0 pressure. Burn guardian is kind of an outlier in that regard, but only because its burn stacking is kind of broken to be honest, and even then, against a dedicated team comp that has AoE condi cleanses just from doing normal skills (a fundamental part of playing bunker guard, the old shoutbow, or any cele ele build, and now even mantra shatter mes).

Most of these 1v1 oriented builds can’t contribute well in teamfights because they are often dependent on condition damage and decent defenses to wear oponents down while being tanky, having lots of regen, or boons/stealth/ports. Condition damage has been proven to be lackluster against teams that have at least 1 ele/guard, as in teamfights their damage can’t really go through to its full extent. Meanwhile AI focused builds like MM necro or PU mes, simply get wrecked by cleave and AoE in teamfights, meaning they can’t contribute because their personal DPS is low compared to their AI+personal DPS.

Still its important to point out that most of the meta builds of the game mode are meta builds because they are both capable, if not broken, in 1v1s, and have the damage, support, and control needed to be useful in teamfights. For example, D/D (or D/F ele) is one of the best 1v1 builds in the game since they can overwhelm most oponents with might stacks. They only really fall to good mesmers/corruption necros that can remove boons very easily. And we know they’re great in teamfights because they can tank a point to an extent, heal/sustain their team and cleanse it, all while dealing good physical and condition damage. Bunker guards conversely won’t be killing anyone in a 1v1, but they can at least prevent a point from being decapped 1v1 until a teammate can arrive to easily finish the fight.

tl;dr 1v1 focused builds suck at teamfights, so don’t play them 1v1 unless your class somehow has an advantage. Play a good build that is both useful 1v1 and in teamfights.

nearlight.3064:

OP I agree that your overall point is correct, in that its stupid complaining about condi necros or condi rangers or condi mesmers (notice a theme here?) for being very strong 1v1, because so many people think those builds are overpowered in general because they can’t win 1v1s against them… however its abundantly clear that those 3 builds, as well as most other 1v1 or condition focused builds absolutely suck in team fights with 0 pressure. Burn guardian is kind of an outlier in that regard, but only because its burn stacking is kind of broken to be honest, and even then, against a dedicated team comp that has AoE condi cleanses just from doing normal skills (a fundamental part of playing bunker guard, the old shoutbow, or any cele ele build, and now even mantra shatter mes).

Most of these 1v1 oriented builds can’t contribute well in teamfights because they are often dependent on condition damage and decent defenses to wear oponents down while being tanky, having lots of regen, or boons/stealth/ports. Condition damage has been proven to be lackluster against teams that have at least 1 ele/guard, as in teamfights their damage can’t really go through to its full extent. Meanwhile AI focused builds like MM necro or PU mes, simply get wrecked by cleave and AoE in teamfights, meaning they can’t contribute because their personal DPS is low compared to their AI+personal DPS.

Still its important to point out that most of the meta builds of the game mode are meta builds because they are both capable, if not broken, in 1v1s, and have the damage, support, and control needed to be useful in teamfights. For example, D/D (or D/F ele) is one of the best 1v1 builds in the game since they can overwhelm most oponents with might stacks. They only really fall to good mesmers/corruption necros that can remove boons very easily. And we know they’re great in teamfights because they can tank a point to an extent, heal/sustain their team and cleanse it, all while dealing good physical and condition damage. Bunker guards conversely won’t be killing anyone in a 1v1, but they can at least prevent a point from being decapped 1v1 until a teammate can arrive to easily finish the fight.

tl;dr 1v1 focused builds suck at teamfights, so don’t play them 1v1 unless your class somehow has an advantage. Play a good build that is both useful 1v1 and in teamfights.

Indeed, and keep in mind that this doesn’t mean I dismiss 1v1s as a whole as there are certain builds that revolve around that such as pre patch d/p thief that excelled at winning 1v1s. Conquest and dueling though, are different metas with different objectives. In dueling, you’re aiming to make the best build to take down an individual, which is usually at the cost of things like mobility and team support.

In conquest, you have to essentially balance a number of things to make you viable. How well does your build do against others is important, but does your build have mobility? Does it contribute anything to your team mates (healing, portal, condition clearing, etc.) Because other people have to bring similar builds, you don’t have to worry about builds like that most of the time because anyone who brings a slow moving 1v1 build that cannot down someone fast enough is bringing the team down. Thief and mesmer meta builds can get away with this because they can kill fast, but also offer mobility for back capping and other things like portal.

Hi,

bhagwad.4281:

Elegie.3620:

Some builds are better at 1v1 than others, for sure. I don’t see the problem with that, though: as the OP has stated, the game is a team effort, if you find yourself dueling on a point when you don’t have the right build for it, then either you’re greedy (so be punished if you cannot overcome the build handicap), or you’ve got a big rotation issue (your role is to be doing something else somewhere else).

So at least we agree that 1v1s do have a role, and that they cannot be ignored. Great. Consequently, a build that is too good in 1v1s for all classes is clearly unbalanced.

I guess I’ve been unclear then, sorry about that. Generally, a 1v1 can have two outcomes:

• One player dies, conceding both the objective and the points brought by his death,
• No player dies, so the one not having the control of the objective is useless.

So basically, 1v1 are always bad for one of the two players, and thus should never happen, unless a player (the loser) makes an unsafe bet (i.e. being greedy) rather than a rational decision (+1 elsewhere). In other words, 1v1 don’t have a role. Losing an objective is bad; dying while losing it is terrible.

1v1 do happen though, you’re right about that. Team compositions may not be optimal (or be hard-countered), players skills vary (especially in their rotational knowledge) and above all: this is a game after all, and people want to be greedy and fight and kill, and not be punished for their errors.

I don’t think one should (or even could) balance about that, though. A player having a weak 1v1 build (or more accurately: a build not letting him conquer or defend an objective while staying alive), should at least display a superior map awareness to avoid 1v1s, or refuse the fight, or escape the attacker, or stall for time until a friend comes and +1s…

As for builds being “too good in 1v1” for all classes… Well, in my experience, every build has its counter-builds. Some builds are better at 1v1 than others, but they all have their nemesis.

Regards.

Elegie.3620:

Hi,

bhagwad.4281:

Elegie.3620:

Some builds are better at 1v1 than others, for sure. I don’t see the problem with that, though: as the OP has stated, the game is a team effort, if you find yourself dueling on a point when you don’t have the right build for it, then either you’re greedy (so be punished if you cannot overcome the build handicap), or you’ve got a big rotation issue (your role is to be doing something else somewhere else).

So at least we agree that 1v1s do have a role, and that they cannot be ignored. Great. Consequently, a build that is too good in 1v1s for all classes is clearly unbalanced.

I guess I’ve been unclear then, sorry about that. Generally, a 1v1 can have two outcomes:

• One player dies, conceding both the objective and the points brought by his death,
• No player dies, so the one not having the control of the objective is useless.

So basically, 1v1 are always bad for one of the two players, and thus should never happen, unless a player (the loser) makes an unsafe bet (i.e. being greedy) rather than a rational decision (+1 elsewhere). In other words, 1v1 don’t have a role. Losing an objective is bad; dying while losing it is terrible.

1v1 do happen though, you’re right about that. Team compositions may not be optimal (or be hard-countered), players skills vary (especially in their rotational knowledge) and above all: this is a game after all, and people want to be greedy and fight and kill, and not be punished for their errors.

I don’t think one should (or even could) balance about that, though. A player having a weak 1v1 build (or more accurately: a build not letting him conquer or defend an objective while staying alive), should at least display a superior map awareness to avoid 1v1s, or refuse the fight, or escape the attacker, or stall for time until a friend comes and +1s…

As for builds being “too good in 1v1” for all classes… Well, in my experience, every build has its counter-builds. Some builds are better at 1v1 than others, but they all have their nemesis.

Regards.

A 1v1 is not always bad for one of the players. Consider a 1v1 at a previously uncontested mid point. Without knowing more about the situation, there is no way you can say that it is an unqualified bad thing for either player to leave. Because then in your scenario, both players will leave to +1 elsewhere and mid will remain alone and uncontested again!

Also factor in the fact that the outcome of any given 1v1 cannot be predicted. The thief you meet may or may not be good. The mesmer you meet may or may not be running PU. The necro on point may or may not be power. Each of these variables makes it impossible to decide beforehand with 100% certainty whether or not to engage. Making a decision that turns out to be wrong cannot be called a “mistake” since you’re starting with imperfect information. Therefore, making an “unsafe bet” is part and parcel of the game. By definition, all gambles involve risk. If there was no risk, it would not be a gamble.

Any strategy in an unbalanced zero sum game involves risk. Here, a “rational decision” does not mean taking no risks. It means taking informed risks. And those informed risks often include engaging in 1v1s.

The fact that you mention that every build has its counter, is proof that you think the game is already balanced around 1v1s. If however, there was a certain build that beat all other builds in a 1v1, that would be an “unbalanced against 1v1” scenario. What is balance after all? It doesn’t mean that every build has to be viable against every other. It means that (among other things), that no single build is supreme against all others in a stand alone scenario.

So now it’s merely a question of deciding whether or not the above statement is true. Is it true that every build has its counter build? If the answer is “yes”, then the game is indeed balanced already around 1v1s and statements saying “GW2 cannot be balanced around 1v1s” are meaningless because it already is.

bhagwad.4281:

Any strategy in an unbalanced zero sum game involves risk. Here, a “rational decision” does not mean taking no risks. It means taking informed risks. And those informed risks often include engaging in 1v1s.

How dare you bring game theory into video games!

Elegie.3620:

Hi,

bhagwad.4281:

Elegie.3620:

Some builds are better at 1v1 than others, for sure. I don’t see the problem with that, though: as the OP has stated, the game is a team effort, if you find yourself dueling on a point when you don’t have the right build for it, then either you’re greedy (so be punished if you cannot overcome the build handicap), or you’ve got a big rotation issue (your role is to be doing something else somewhere else).

So at least we agree that 1v1s do have a role, and that they cannot be ignored. Great. Consequently, a build that is too good in 1v1s for all classes is clearly unbalanced.

I guess I’ve been unclear then, sorry about that. Generally, a 1v1 can have two outcomes:

• One player dies, conceding both the objective and the points brought by his death,
• No player dies, so the one not having the control of the objective is useless.

You’re forgetting a couple:

• Both players enter down states
• One player enters down state but the player still standing has between 10% health to half.

What’s unbalanced is that certain builds will always have a 50% or higher health pool against certain classes.

For the record, the curret AspectGG game that’s going on, an Ele just won a 1v1 fight against a Necro. To say that these never happen is ignorance.

Dueling is highly related to tpvp. Sure, tpvp is way more complicated than just 1v1s but it definitely stems from it. A person able to hold his own in a 1v1 definitely plays better in tpvp than another who can’t assuming they have the same knowledge and mechanics of tpvp.

Hi,

bhagwad.4281:

A 1v1 is not always bad for one of the players. Consider a 1v1 at a previously uncontested mid point. Without knowing more about the situation, there is no way you can say that it is an unqualified bad thing for either player to leave. Because then in your scenario, both players will leave to +1 elsewhere and mid will remain alone and uncontested again!

There are 3 possible outcomes in such a situation (and I’ve seen them all in real games):

• Both players fight it out,
• One of the player disengages and goes +1 elsewhere, the second one captures the objective,
• One of the player disengages and goes +1, and the second one does the same, leaving the objective uncontested, because the +1 of the first player can mean the loss of another objective, and possibly more deaths.

bhagwad.4281:

Also factor in the fact that the outcome of any given 1v1 cannot be predicted. The thief you meet may or may not be good. The mesmer you meet may or may not be running PU. The necro on point may or may not be power. Each of these variables makes it impossible to decide beforehand with 100% certainty whether or not to engage.

Ah, yes, indeed. If there’s uncertainty, then I agree that you may/should engage the 1v1 (if your build has 1v1 capabilities), provided you’ve got backup options in case you don’t get the upper hand (you can disengage, or request support). In itself, gaining information is a worthy objective, as it can be shared with the team to make better decisions later.

Regards.

Hi,

Saiyan.1704:

Elegie.3620:

I guess I’ve been unclear then, sorry about that. Generally, a 1v1 can have two outcomes:

• One player dies, conceding both the objective and the points brought by his death,
• No player dies, so the one not having the control of the objective is useless.

You’re forgetting a couple:

• Both players enter down states
• One player enters down state but the player still standing has between 10% health to half.

Ah, you mean both players may die, because of the downstate mechanics? Yes, it’s possible. In that case, the makes the outcome of the 1v1 neutral if the objective wasn’t initially conquered by one of the two players.

Saiyan.1704:

What’s unbalanced is that certain builds will always have a 50% or higher health pool against certain classes.

I main a warrior. On the plus side, I have a high health pool and heavy armor, decent mobility (been nerfed considerably with the patch though), partial invulnerabilities, blocks, hard control, cleansing, bleed/cripple/vulnerability/weakness, might/fury/swiftness/stability, stun breakers and combo finishers.

On the minus side, I have no stealth, no teleport, no AI, telegraphed attacks, no boon removal, no chilled/poison, one blind/fear/confusion/torment, 2 burn/immobilize, no aegis/protection, 1 regeneration/retaliation, 1 combo field.

Balance implies offsetting all these variables together, also including class mechanics. Considering only health pool and stating that some classes are unbalanced is a bit strange – or am I missing your point?

Regards.

Elegie.3620:

Hi,

Saiyan.1704:

Elegie.3620:

I guess I’ve been unclear then, sorry about that. Generally, a 1v1 can have two outcomes:

• One player dies, conceding both the objective and the points brought by his death,
• No player dies, so the one not having the control of the objective is useless.

You’re forgetting a couple:

• Both players enter down states
• One player enters down state but the player still standing has between 10% health to half.

Ah, you mean both players may die, because of the downstate mechanics? Yes, it’s possible. In that case, the makes the outcome of the 1v1 neutral if the objective wasn’t initially conquered by one of the two players.

Saiyan.1704:

What’s unbalanced is that certain builds will always have a 50% or higher health pool against certain classes.

I main a warrior. On the plus side, I have a high health pool and heavy armor, decent mobility (been nerfed considerably with the patch though), partial invulnerabilities, blocks, hard control, cleansing, bleed/cripple/vulnerability/weakness, might/fury/swiftness/stability, stun breakers and combo finishers.

On the minus side, I have no stealth, no teleport, no AI, telegraphed attacks, no boon removal, no chilled/poison, one blind/fear/confusion/torment, 2 burn/immobilize, no aegis/protection, 1 regeneration/retaliation, 1 combo field.

Balance implies offsetting all these variables together, also including class mechanics. Considering only health pool and stating that some classes are unbalanced is a bit strange – or am I missing your point?

Regards.

My point was in regards to class balance; not where their physical health pool ends up but the way the class performs in general. In other words, one class will perform better than others in that scenario. The balance issue is so apparent that threads have been made about them.

We all know why the Warrior has a high health pool. What we don’t know is why the Warrior doesn’t counter say.. a Mesmer.. the same as the Ele counters a Guardian, condi classes, and (the now) Rangers? Excuses as to why doesn’t outweigh the reasons.

Saiyan.1704:

My point was in regards to class balance; not where their physical health pool ends up but the way the class performs in general. In other words, one class will perform better than others in that scenario. The balance issue is so apparent that threads have been made about them.

We all know why the Warrior has a high health pool. What we don’t know is why the Warrior doesn’t counter say.. a Mesmer.. the same as the Ele counters a Guardian, condi classes, and (the now) Rangers? Excuses as to why doesn’t outweigh the reasons.

Well, each class has innate strengths and weaknesses, so as to force you into particular gameplays. If each and every class could counter each and every other, what would be the point of class diversity and more importantly, class synergy? I actually like that some classes are better than others at specific situations.

As a warrior, I naturally accept that a mesmer has a structural advantage over me: my class is one of the weakest of all to kiting, and the mesmer has splendid kiting options. I cannot have everything, and so does the mesmer.

Balancing classes considering 1-1 relationships between classes (A counters B, B counters A) looks a bit plain to me, one should rather balance considering circular relationships (A counters B counters C counters A) and class synergies.

Elegie.3620:

Saiyan.1704:

My point was in regards to class balance; not where their physical health pool ends up but the way the class performs in general. In other words, one class will perform better than others in that scenario. The balance issue is so apparent that threads have been made about them.

We all know why the Warrior has a high health pool. What we don’t know is why the Warrior doesn’t counter say.. a Mesmer.. the same as the Ele counters a Guardian, condi classes, and (the now) Rangers? Excuses as to why doesn’t outweigh the reasons.

Well, each class has innate strengths and weaknesses, so as to force you into particular gameplays. If each and every class could counter each and every other, what would be the point of class diversity and more importantly, class synergy? I actually like that some classes are better than others at specific situations.

As a warrior, I naturally accept that a mesmer has a structural advantage over me: my class is one of the weakest of all to kiting, and the mesmer has splendid kiting options. I cannot have everything, and so does the mesmer.

Balancing classes considering 1-1 relationships between classes (A counters B, B counters A) looks a bit plain to me, one should rather balance considering circular relationships (A counters B counters C counters A) and class synergies.

Let me correct you there. The Guardian is the most immobile classes in the game. Second to that, is a Necro, then the Warrior.

I can go into detail about how lopsided the performance is between Warrior vs other professions, compared to Ele/Mesmer vs other professions, but i’ll just sound like a broken record player. I implore you to read these threads. They should be on the 2nd or 3rd page in pvp forum. The performance difference is so great, you can’t possibly say it doesn’t effect tpvp.

Saiyan.1704:

Let me correct you there. The Guardian is the most immobile classes in the game. Second to that, is a Necro, then the Warrior.

Did I say the weakest of all?

Saiyan.1704:

I can go into detail about how lopsided the performance is between Warrior vs other professions, compared to Ele/Mesmer vs other professions, but i’ll just sound like a broken record player. I implore you to read these threads. They should be on the 2nd or 3rd page in pvp forum. The performance difference is so great, you can’t possibly say it doesn’t effect tpvp.

You’re being condescending, assuming that I don’t read existing posts, and suggesting that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ll stop the discussion here.

Regards.

And here’s yet another 1v1 scenario. Two players meet at an undefended skyhammer. It simply cannot be said that a 1v1 should never ever happen here.